Jim Romenesko didn’t plagiarize and my friends at the Poynter Institute were wrong to suggest that he did.

I agree that Romenesko — and any journalist — should use quotation marks when using exact words of people. But when you credit and link, failure to quote is not plagiarism. It’s a punctuation offense, not a serious breach of journalism ethics. Julie Moos, director of Poynter Online, was mistaken in saying that he failed to meet Poynter’s publishing standards. She was especially mistaken to follow that statement with a quote from the Poynter standards that used the P-word.

I was on the road this afternoon when the story broke. I weigh in belatedly only because I blogged about attribution and plagiarism just last week. I also weigh in reluctantly. I consider Moos and many of her Poynter colleagues to be friends. I have collaborated with Poynter faculty on ethics seminars and have the highest respect for Poynter and its position as the leading voice in journalism ethics.

Here is exactly what Moos wrote (italics are mine, identifying potential offenses in the passage cited):

Without those quotation marks, it (Romenesko’s attribution) is incomplete and inconsistent with our publishing practices and standards on Poynter.org.

We credit the authors and creators of the various forms of journalism we publish. We apply appropriate scrutiny to work by staff and contributing writers to prevent plagiarism, intentional or otherwise. We do not intentionally mislead with words or images. We do not deliberately deceive as we gather information.

What standard did Romenesko violate? He credited the authors, so this clearly wasn’t plagiarism, defined in Dictionary.com (again, with my italics):

the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work, as by not crediting the author.

Whatever offense, if any, Romenesko committed was in presenting information, not gathering it, so the final sentence is irrelevant.

If his use of people’s exact words without quotation marks was considered intentionally misleading, then Moos should have quoted that single sentence and not brought plagiarism — one of journalism’s most serious sins — into a case where authors were clearly credited and linked. But I see no sign that Romenesko intentionally misled. I believe he followed the Poynter standards, which don’t address punctuation.

Update: I just read the 10,000 Words post in which Julie Moos says that she did not regard Romenesko’s offense as plagiarism. Then she should not have said he failed to meet Poynter standards and cited the passage from the standards on plagiarism. Since the passage never mentions specifically how you should handle quotes, the connection to plagiarism was clear, even if unintended.

I have been linked several times in Romenesko’s blog (we’ve never met, though). I don’t recall ever being aware that he was using my exact words without quoting them.

I do remember, though, in ethics seminars (probably with Poynter colleagues) referring to Romenesko’s blog as the “sex offender registry of journalism ethics” because it seemed as though every ethical offense, however serious, fell under the Romenesko spotlight (enshrined by Google whenever the offender was looking for a job). I mean, if anyone was a target for attack on grounds of plagiarism or any other journalism ethics violation, it was Romenesko. But he followed the same practice openly for 12 years, apparently without complaint.

Moos says Erika Fry of Columbia Journalism Review raised a question about the Romenesko’s punctuation. I think that required that Poynter address the issue. Given Romenesko’s extensive coverage of ethical issues and Poynter’s standing as a leading voice on journalism ethics, some response was necessary.

I think an appropriate response would have been to note what Romenesko had been doing and to note that the Poynter standards did not address the specific issue of quotation marks. The standards could and probably should be updated to require use of quotation marks when using exact words.

Moos’ heavy use of boldface in the only example cited from Romenesko’s blog struck me as unfair to him. She said he highlighted “the author’s verbatim language.” But most of that language, 96 words, actually was in quotations. Romenesko did use 85 words that were exactly the same as the Trib, but these passages were in pretty ordinary language, and he attributed twice to “the Tribune” and twice to “the paper,” in addition to attributing and linking to the Tribune above his blog entry.

I should note that both in her original post addressing the issue and in a later post saying that she had accepted his second resignation (after initially refusing it), Moos expressed what a difficult issue this had been for Poynter. She and Poynter President Karen Dunlap praised Romenesko for his contributions. She expressed regret that his Poynter run had come to such an unfortunate end. It didn’t have to.

I liken this to the Rick Bragg case of using a dateline for a story where a stringer did most of the on-site reporting, but Bragg wrote the story and was present at the location of the dateline. As I wrote at the time, using stringer contributions without credit in staff-bylined stories was a standard practice in journalism (I experienced it on both ends). Maybe it was a practice that should be changed, but you don’t punish or smear people for following established practices. You just update the standards and move forward.

Romenesko was a pioneer of media blogging and his practices were long accepted. If it was time to change the standard, then change the standard with no blame.

Update: I decided to add here that while I agree with Paton’s decision not to have rules for social media use at Journal Register Co. and Digital First Media, I am not critical (Salmon is) of Poynter for its detailed publishing standards. As I noted above, Poynter is the leading voice for journalism ethics, and I appreciate that it spells out its standards. I have often said that newsroom ethics policies exist more to justify firing people than to provide effective guidance. But Poynter is a journalism leader and spelling out its standards was helpful to the industry as a whole. While I think Salmon provided a thoughtful reflection about the contrast between Poynter’s detailed standards and Paton’s decision not to restrict his staff as we experiment in digital journalism, I appreciated and admired Poynter’s standards.

My criticism is simply that Romenesko’s insufficient use of quotation marks in content that was clearly attributed did not violate the Poynter standards.

My final point: John’s lack of social media rules does not mean Digital First Media and Journal Register Co. not tolerate plagiarism. We don’t. We just don’t need special social media rules to uphold that standard.

Update: Overnight I decided I should add to this post that I have discussed with Julie Moos the possibility of being a part-time contributor to Poynter in the plan to replace Romenesko (who had already decided to end his full-time employment with Poynter at the end of the year).

I did not apply for the full-time position replacing Romenesko, but said I might consider being a part-time contributor to the Romenesko blog. I had not disclosed those discussions with my bosses at Digital First Media, Jim Brady and John Paton, until this morning, because I had no details for which to ask their approval. I don’t know whether Poynter will want me to become a regular paid contributor, whether I would accept or whether Jim and John would approve the arrangement (I would not accept without their approval). But I think I should disclose the discussions at this point.

Like this:

Related

33 Responses

Um, you can’t copy complete sentences from someone, embed a link at the end and call that sufficient attribution. If you copy more than a few words from someone, they HAVE to be in quotation marks or in a blockquote. It’s not just an issue of punctuation, as if he misplaced a few commas. As Moos wrote, “One danger of this practice is that the words may appear to belong to Jim when they in fact belong to another.”

Your blog post is really badly misleading, mendacious even, because Poynter did not “call it plagiarism.” The headline of her piece was carefully worded: “Questions over Romenesko’s attributions spur changes in writing, editing.” Yes, she quoted a four-sentence statement of ethics that did include the word “plagiarism.” But that is far from “calling it plagiarism” and you should correct your headline.

I have enjoyed Mr. Romenesko’s work too. But not attributing is wrong when the Huffington Post does it and it’s wrong when the Poynter Institute does it.

Derek, thanks for your comment. I agree that Romenesko — and anyone — should use quotation marks when using someone’s exact words.

I strongly resent your statement that my blog post was “badly misleading, mendacious even.” Mendacious is defined in Dictionary.com as “telling lies, especially habitually; dishonest; lying; untruthful.” We may disagree about what Moos did or meant to do in her piece, but, if I’m wrong (and I’m not), my error falls several degrees below lying. She did use the word “plagiarism” in her piece. Specifically, she said Romenesko’s conduct was “inconsistent with our publishing practices and standards,” then quoted from the standards, starting with the sentence that mentions plagiarism. I believe it is the correct interpretation to say that she called his offense plagiarism. That’s especially true in this case, since the passage cited didn’t include a description of Romenesko’s actual offense, which was an error of punctuation. At the very least, my interpretation is reasonable, and you should apologize for calling me a liar.

You say “not attributing is wrong,” and that is wrong. Romenesko included three direct quotes and five attributions. Without question, he attributed. We agree that he should have used more quotation marks, but you are wrong to call me mendacious and you are wrong to use the phrase “not attributing” in reference to Romenesko. He attributed thoroughly. He just failed to quote fully. I normally don’t allow comments on my blog that are factually incorrect. I have decided to approve this one because it criticizes me and I don’t feel comfortable withholding a thoughtful critical comment. But get your facts right or I will not approve future comments.

Maybe “mendacious” was a little harsh. But I think the best you can say is that Moos “suggested” it was plagiarism, since she so clearly went out of her way not to use that word in her headline or text. (And has since clearly stated that she didn’t consider it plagiarism).

I don’t think that if you use someone else’s words, a link is sufficient or thorough attribution. It’s just like copying someone’s words for a college essay and not using quotes but rather putting in a footnote. That’d get you hauled up before the academic ethics panel at most universities, or at least certainly the one I attended…

Lookit this example Erika Fry dug up by another writer at Poynter. Politico’s Mike Allen had written,

It’s a 21st-century update to the old “radio row,” which let talk-show hosts to broadcast from the White House…

And then the dude on Poynter wrote,

Mike Allen called it a 21st-century update to the old “radio row,” in which talk-show hosts broadcast from the White House…

That strikes me as, y’know, plagiarism. I’d be kind-of inclined to give the author the benefit of the doubt if he says it was inadvertent, but you cannot use someone else’s words like that without putting them in quotations.

I agree that quotations should be used when using someone’s exact words. But if you attribute, as he always did, it’s not plagiarism. The dictionary definition of plagiarism (and every case I’m aware of in journalism) says plagiarism is using someone else’s work without attribution. Moos has also not changed in any way her statement in the original blog post that he was “inconsistent” with the Poynter standard on plagiarism. That’s more than a suggestion. I stand my my initial headline and blog post.

Well, a reporter’s “work” consists of two elements: the facts they dig up, and the words they use to report those facts. By linking, the Poynter writers attributed that the facts came from someone else. But if they didn’t use quotes when they copied someone else’s words, then they were still “using someone else’s work without attribution.”

I’ve been taking the time to read what’s been going on with this all day today and it seems to me a crying shame.

Part of me understands the concern, perhaps based in the idea of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. But as you and others have pointed out today, Steve, any such appearance in this case is overwhelmingly mitigated by the intent, which is eminently clear.

And clearly, as you pointed out, this was a punctuation issue. Never in my 17 years editing copy did I ever see someone disciplined over mistakes in punctuation. It seems to me Poynter owes Jim Romenesko an apology.

Ted, thanks for your comment. To clarify: There is no indication that Poynter formally disciplined (the word you used, though you didn’t say formally) Romenesko. However, they did ask him to refrain from publishing, and the public (and, in my view, inaccurate) questioning of his practices, using the P-word, was actually harsher than some forms of formal discipline might be. I’m not disagreeing with you, just clarifying.

Quotation marks frequently appeared in Jim’s blog, and he clearly knows how to use them. This wasn’t a punctuation problem. Intentionally or not, Jim gave the impression that the words were his. If plagiarism is simply the unattributed use of other people’s words, it’s plagiarism whether it comes out of rushing to meet deadlines, habit, laziness, or an actual intent to deceive.

How could Poynter *not* call him on this breakdown of standards? I’m sorry to see him leave over this controversy, and I don’t think he should have felt he had to, but Poynter would have lost credibility in the profession if it had made no public acknowledgment of the issue. That’s its job.

I agree that Poynter had to address the matter, but they addressed it wrongly. You yourself said plagiarism is the “unattributed” use of others’ work. Romenesko always attributed. Yes, I agree that he should have quoted or paraphrased more. But failure to quote when attributing is not plagiarism. And it’s not in the Poynter standard that Julie Moos quoted.

[…] A lot of ink has been spilled on this, most of it in outrage at the smearing of a good, hard-working journalist. That’s basically how I feel as well. I’m also concerned about two broader problems that will unfortunately live on, things that are a lot more important than the proper use of quotation marks. […]

Plagiarism can be unintentional (as with forgetting to use the protocol punctuation). Without the quote marks, the reader gets the impression that this author wrote that sentence. The quote marks are what give the reader the correct impression about what is and isn’t written by this author. I call it plagiarism (unintended). I want my college composition students to view the lack of quote marks as plagiarism and not just sloppy attribution. I want them to know the required protocols for avoiding plagiarism. If they use exact wording and provide a source but don’t use quote marks, I don’t accept that paper until the problem is fixed. Failure to use attribution protocols is still plagiarism. I don’t think it’s a major ethical violation in this case, and I work with students on such repairs rather than fail the paper. There’s hoopla about this because full attribution protocols weren’t used. Full attribution is needed to avoid plagiarism.

Some further thoughts. I give my students the benefit of the doubt about unintended plagiarism. I would also give Romenesko the same. With my students, I’m pretty sure I see a lot of back-peddling about what they meant to do but now claim they didn’t mean to do. In one paper, I can see a source quoted properly then the same source used verbatim without quote marks. Did the student really just forget the punctuation? I don’t get involved with their intent. I just ask for the repair to remove the plagiarism (intended or not).

It’s reasonable to be accused of plagiarism when you forget the required punctuation. Original authors are entitled to have their words and ideas used properly. Improper use is plagiarism. And, there’s also the matter of any people who have picked up Romenesko’s unquoted sentence as if it’s Romenesko’s. So, there can be people attributing something to Romenesko incorrectly now too. It’s not just a punctuation offense like misplacing a comma. It’s plagiarism because it gives the appearance that it was his remark. It needs to be acknowledged as plagiarism due to a failure to make the quoting clear (his responsibility). I dont’ think he should lose his job over it, but it would now be reasonable for his peers to be more careful with his writing because he’s already known to be careless with quoting.

Linda, we agree that Romenesko should have used more quotation marks. But to call that plagiarism is wrong. He always attributed. Plagiarism is a failure to attribute. In the sample passage cited by Poynter, he attributed five times, with a link. Plagiarism is one of journalism’s most serious sins. If we’re going to call this a sin, we need to use a different name for it. And find a place where the Poynter standards identified it as a sin. Otherwise, it’s a new standard. We’re not talking about an academic paper here. We’re talking about aggregation that is rooted in attribution.

Plagiarism isn’t only defined as failure to attribute. It also entails using the protocols by which we recognize attribution. Not using those protocols is an offense to the original author. I’m not saying that the consequences should be severe in this case. It wouldn’t be severe for my students either. I would still ask them to fix the problem before I would accept the writing because it is plagiarism by definition. Without the quote marks, Romenesko gave the impression (inadvertent or not) that the borrowed stuff was elsewhere in his writing and that this was his original stuff.

[…] for whom I have boundless admiration and respect, argues that Romenesko’s fault was simply a punctuation problem, I find myself in the rare position of questioning his call. Leaving out a comma or semicolon can […]

I’m not quite sure what to think about all this, but I suspect that if any other journalist did this form of aggregation without the accepted form of attribution, not to mention a journalism student, the reaction would be a lot more negative, and possibly even punitive.

you’ve got a terrific headline – great bait, but it’s not quite accurate. Poynter accused him of not attributing correctly, and it seems that’s very true. how come it’s ok for him, but not for others? the answer is that it isn’t ok for anyone. as the ‘dean of media bloggers’, as some have called him, he really should have known better. maybe he got a little bit lazy over the years, a common happening. kind of like not always signaling lane changes when driving. all the same, there was a standard, and he didn’t follow it.

Actually, the headline is accurate. Poynter said his practices were inconsistent with their standards, then cited the plagiarism standard. That’s an accusation of plagiarism and no amount of sugarcoating or backpedaling will change that.

would what he did be acceptable if another journalist did it? someone of lesser stature, perhaps? or maybe a journalism student? at what point does a journalist. or someone aspiring to be one, have to toe the line when it comes to professional standards, including not properly attributing or whatever one wants to split hairs and call it? at my j-school, and probably a great many others, a student would get a failing grade if they did this. and the profs don’t care about the intent, just the result.

[…] didn’t plagiarize and my friends at the Poynter Institute were wrong to suggest that he did,” wrote Steve Buttry, the director of community engagement and social media at Journal Register Co. “It’s a […]

[…] stories too promiscuously and without quotation marks. That accusation led to a mildly idiotic to-and-fro about whether Romenesko plagiarized, which generally requires a false claim to originality, […]

[…] gravest sins and I don’t apply that word to passages that cite their sources. In a post about Jim Romenesko’s departure from Poynter, I called it a “a punctuation offense, not a serious breach of journalism […]